HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 1982-12-21 Minutes
.
~1INUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
DECEMBER 21, 1982 - 7:30 P. M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
OCTOBER 21, 1982
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
OCTOBER 28, 1982
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 4, 1982
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETIN~ Q~
NOVEMBER 18, 1982
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
DECEMBER 9, 1982
1.
PS 82-62
.
The meeting was called to order by the
Chairman, George Tucker, at 7:40 P. M.
PRESENT:
CHA 1 Rt·1AN
SECRETARY
MEMBERS
George Tucker
Marjorie Nash
Don Bowen
Mark Hannon
Mark Wood
John Schwinger
Allen Bronstad
Wanda Calvert
ALT. MEMBER
ASST. DIR OF PW/U
P & Z COORDINATOR
Ms. Nash moved, seconded by Mr. Bowen, to
approve the minutes as written. This
motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Hannon moved, seconded by Mr. Wood, to
approve the minutes as written. This
motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Bowen moved, seconded by Mr. Wood, to
approve the minutes as written. This
motion carried 5-0.with Mr. Hannon abstaining.
Ms. Nash moved, seconded by Mr. Hannon, to
approve the minutes as written. This
motion carried 5-0.
Ms. Nash moved, seconded by Mr. Bowen, to
approve the minutes as written. This
motion carried 5-0.
Chairman Tucker stated that at the request
of the applicant, Alco Develon~ent Company,
item #7, PZ 82-33, will be postponed until
January 27, 1983.
Request of Alco Development Company for
replat of Lots 4R-6R, Block 14, North
Hills Addition.
Ms. Calvert stated due to the illness of
Mr. Allison, there would be no one to
present this request.
Page 2
P & Z minutes
December 21, 1982
.
The Chairman said since this was a replat
in Single Family zoning, there would need
to be a Public Hearing. He opened the
Public Hearing and called for those wishing
to speak in favor of this request to please
come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak, the
Chairman called for those wishing to speak
in opposition to this request to please
come forward.
Norma Rhodes, 3628 Wendell Drive, came
forward. She asked since this is at the
end of Wendell Drive, what was planned for
this plat.
Mr. Tucker said the present zoning is for
single family homes.
Mr. Bronstad said the reason for this
replat was they are abandoning the sewer
on Lot 4 and are going to run it down
behind the lot.
.
Ms. Rhodes asked if it was still going to
be three lots.
Mr. Tucker said it would be.
Mr. Hannon stated the other case on the
agenda for Alco Development Company is
adjacent to this property, it is not this
property.
The Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Bowen asked about the City Engineer's
comment about the existing 811 water line
being located outside the existing easement.
Mr. Bronstad said that was correct and the
city will move the line probably next week.
Mr. Hannon asked if the city would need
additional easements.
.
PS 82-62
APPROVED
Mr. Bronstad said they would not.
Mr. Wood made the motion to approve PS 82-62
subject to the Engineer's comments. This
motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the
motion carried 5-0.
Page 3
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
2.
PS 82-64
Request of Earl C. Baker for Short Form
Platting of Lot 2, Block 1, French
Addition (prev. submitted as Earl Baker
Addition).
Mr. Bronstad stated Mr. Baker nor his
engineer were able to be present, but
they requested approval of this plat.
Mr. Hannon said he understands this plat
does not meet the requirement for
Agricultural zoning and he could not see
how the Commission could approve this plat.
PS 82-64
DENIED
Mr. Hannon made the motion to deny PS 82-64.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and
the motion to deny carried 5-0.
3.
PS 82-65
Request of BWBM Partnership for final plat
of Lot 1, Block 1, Castle Winds Addition.
.
The Chairman stated he had several requests
to speak regarding this final plat, but he
said unless this was a replat in Single
Family zoning, they do not have a Public
Hearing. Chairman Tucker said there is a
zoning request on this property later on
this agenda which everyone will have a
chance to speak. He stated the only way
the Commission could deny a plat is if it
does not meet the Subdivision Ordinance.
The Chairman asked if there were any
comments from the Commission members.
There were none.
Ms. Nash made the motion to approve PS 82-65.
Owen D. Long, Consulting Engineer, came
forward. He said they had received the City
Engineer1s comments and have submitted a
rebuttal letter. Mr. Long said they feel
they can comply with the Engineer1s requests.
Mr. Tucker asked if the plat could be used
for Local Retail zoning.
.
Mr. Long said it could. He said the platting
of this property has nothing to do with the
zoning.
Page 4
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr. Hannon asked about the drainage
ditch.
Mr. Long said they would maintain it
since it would be privately owned.
Mr. Bronstad said let them maintain it.
PS 82-65
APPROVED
Ms. Nash said she would like to amend her
previous motion to include lIapproval
subject to the Engineer1s comments II.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Hannon
and the motion carried 5-0.
4.
PS 82-66
Request of BWBM Partnership for preliminary
plat of Lot 1, Block 2, Castle Winds Addn.
Owen D. Long, Consulting Engineer, came
forward. He said they had received the
City Engineer1s comments and have submitted
a rebuttle letter. Mr. Long said they can
comply with the City Engineer1s comments.
.
PS 82-66
APPROVED
Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve PS 82-66
subject to the Engineer1s comments.
This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and
the motion carried 5-0.
5.
PS 82-67
Request of Cross Roads Development Company
for preliminary plat of Block 8-R, Snow
Heights North Addition.
John Cook, General Partner of Cross Roads
Development Company, came forward. He
said they had received the City Engineer1s
comments and take no exception to them.
PS 82-67
APPROVED
Ms. Nash made the motion to approve PS 82-67
subject to the City Engineer1s comments.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and
the motion carried 5-0.
6.
PZ 82-32
Request of Tierra Financial, Inc. to rezone
Tract 3A, Abstract 321, William Cox Survey,
from its present classification of Agriculture
to a proposed classification of Multi-Family.
This property is located at the Northwest
corner of Turner Drive and Davis Blvd.
.
Page 5
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
John Cook came forward in the absence of
Delbert Stembridge who was to represent
Tierra Financial, Inc. He said due to the
location of the property and the shape of
the land, they felt Multi-Family zoning
would be the best use for this land.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing
and called for those wishing to speak in
favor of this request to please come
forward.
There being no one wishing to speak, the
Chairman called for those wishing to speak
in opposition to this request to please
come forward.
David Payne, 6983 Cox Lane, came forward.
He stated that the traffic on Davis Blvd.
was already congested and where Turner
Drive comes into Davis Blvd., there would
have to be a traffic light because of the
traffic problem apartments would generate.
.
Mr. Payne said he has had sewer problems
and had won a $10,000 settlement. He said
if apartments comes in there, it would
only add to the sewer problems.
Mr. Payne said it is residential zoning
on all sides of this property and he feels
the Multi-Family zoning would create both
sewer and traffic problems. He said that
Smithfield Elementary School has been
enlarged to accomodate the number of school
children and he doesn1t see how this zoning
could be in the best interest of the city or
the homeowners.
John Larriviere, 6971 Cox Lane, carne forward.
He said he was not sure if Turner Drive could
handle the additional traffic this zoning
would generate. Mr. Larriviere said Turner
Drive had just been resurfaced. He said it
is a very narrow street and he did not feel
it could handle the traffic; there would be
congestion.
.
Mr. Larriviere said he had been lucky because
he had not had any sewer problems, but his
neighbors on both sides of him had sewer
problems.
Page 6
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr.. W,ood asked what he would suggest to
do with this property.
Mr. Larriviere said he understands they
want the highest use for this property,
but if they don1t do any improvements, he
would not be for this zoning change.
Mr. Payne said this property is further
north of the improvements to Davis Blvd.
He said they have an unbelieveable amount
of traffic on Davis Blvd. Mr. Payne said
he felt this zoning would lower their
property value and the sewer in that area
could not handle Multi-Family zoning. He
said he would go along with Single Family
zoning or duplex zoning.
.
Mr. Bowen said all the Commission is
considering is the best use of the land.
Mr. Hannon said there would be approximately
240 apartments.
Chairman Tucker said the developer would
have to go through the platting process
and if there was a drainage problem or a
water or sewer problem, they would be
required to make it adequate.
Mr. Tucker said the traffic would be a
problem.
The Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Wood asked if there were any improve-
ments to be made on Davis Blve.
Mr. Bronstad said that would be up to the
State since it is a State highway.
Mr. Tucker asked about Turner Drive.
.
Mr. Bronstad said he was not sure if Turner
Drive was listed in the bond program.
Mr. Hannon made a motion to approve PZ 82-32
as requested.
This motion died for lack of a second.
Page 7
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
PZ 82-32
DENIED
Mr. Bowen made the motion to deny PZ 82-32.
This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and
the motion to deny carried 4-1 with Mr.
Hannon voting against denial.
7.
PZ 82-33
POSTPONED
Request of Alco Development Company to
rezone a portion of Tract 6, Abstract
953, Mahala Lynch Survey, from its present
classification of 1F-12-0ne Family
Dwellings to a proposed classification of
2F-9-Two Family Dwellings.
This property is located 117 feet East
of Tourist Drive and approximately 150
feet South of Bewley Street.
The Chairman stated this request has been
postponed until January 27, 1983.
8.
PZ 82-34
Request of Danny D. Jeffries to rezone
Tracts 1B & 1B1, Abstract 145, William
D. Barnes Survey, from their present
classification of Agriculture to a
proposed c1a~sification of 1F-9-0ne
Family Dwellings.
This property is located on the East side
of Smithfield Road at the intersection of
Evergreen Avenue and Smithfield Road.
.
Ernest Hedgcoth, Consulting Engineer, came
forward to represent Mr. Jeffries. He
stated they feel that 1F-9 zoning would
conform to the area since Kingswood Estates
to the West and Crestwood Estates to the
Southeast were both 1F-9 zoning.
Mr. Hedgcoth said Mr. Jeffries plans to
construct a cul de sac of 17 lots. He
said the 4.9 acres would provide to the
local builders the development of Single
Family homes.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and
called for those wishing to speak in
favor of this request to please come forward.
.
Glynn Blair, 7709 Evergreen Avenue, came
forward. He asked if 1F-9 zoning would
allow rental property or would it be
privately owned.
Mr. Tucker said it would be for single
family homes.
Page 8
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr. Blair said he had no objection to
this zoning request.
The Chairman called for those wishing to
speak in opposition to this request to
please come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak, the
Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
PZ 82-34
APPROVED
Mr. Wood made the motion to approve PZ 82-34
as requested.
This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and
the motion carried 5-0.
9.
PS 82-63
Request of Danny D. Jeffries for preliminary
plat of Lots 1-17, Block 9, Crestwood Estates.
Ernest Hedgcoth, Consulting Engineer, came
forward. He said they had received the
City Engineer1s comments and feel they can
comply with them.
.
Mr. Bowen asked if he was aware of the
letter from Public Work's Director, Gene
Riddle.
PS 82-63
APPROVED
Mr. Hedgcoth said he was and in the final
plat they would probably have only 16 lots.
He said the Subdivision Ordinance does not
state what to do on a cul de sac. Mr.
Hedgcoth said he talked to the City Engineer
and he said he required a 70 ft. front at
the building line. He said on lots 7, 8,
9 and 10, he would show a width of 55 feet
instead of 40 feet, and then they would be
in conformance with the 70 feet at the
building line. Mr. Hedgcoth said when they
submit the final plat, all lots will have
the required 9,500 square feet.
Mr. Wood made the motion to approve PS 82-63
subject to the Engineer1s comments and
subject to the letter from Mr. Riddle.
This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the
motion carried 5-0.
.
Page 9
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
10.
PZ 82-35
Request of Ray McElroy to rezone Lot A,
Block 9, Richland Heights Addition, from
its present classification of Local Retail
to a proposed classification of Commercial.
This property is located on the East side
of Booth Calloway Road and is approximately
192 feet North of the intersection of
Booth Calloway Road and Glenview Drive.
Jerry Lundgren, Jr. vI; th B I~ L Renta 1 s came
forward. He said this was a family owned
rental yard. Mr. Lundgren said they were
requesting this zoning change because you
can not have outside storage in Local Retail
zoning.
Mr. Wood asked what kind of storage would
they have.
Mr. Lundgren said some pumps and hoses.
.
Mr. Wood asked of there was a fence on this
property.
Mr. Lundgren said there would be a stockade
fence on the side and a cyclone fence on
the back which backs up to the drainage
ditch.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and
called for those wishing to speak in favor
of this request to please come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak, the
Chairman called for those wishing to speak
in opposition to this request to please
come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak, the
Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
PZ 82-35
APPROVED
Mr. Hannon made the motion to approve
PZ 82-35 as requested.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and
the motion carried 5-0.
11.
PZ 82-36
Request of Donald L. Swope to rezone Lot 6,
Edgley Addition, from its present classifi-
cation of IF-9-0ne Family Dwelling to a
proposed classification of Local Retail.
This property is located at 4154 Willman St.
.
Page 10
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr. Swope came forward. He stated he
was requesting this zoning change to
Local Retail for a telephone service. He
said right now he has this house rented
as a residence, but might someday like
to use if for a telephone service.
Mr. Tucker said if it was changed to
Local Retail, he could no longer rent
it as a residence.
12.
PZ 82-36
WITHDRAWN
PZ 82-37
Mr. Swope said he was not aware of this
and withdrew his request.
Request of BWBM Partnership to rezone
Tracts 2B4 & 2B6, Abstract 1588, J. M.
Vandusen Survey, from their present
classification of Local Retail to a
proposed classification of Multi-Family.
This property has a 476.60 ft. frontage
on the west side of Rufe Snow Drive at
the intersection of Mike Street and Manor
Avenue and extends westward 1279.4 ft.
and the back 479,4 ft. extends south a
distance of 1164 feet to Glenview Drive.
.
Daryl Barrett came forward to represent
BWBM Partnership. He said he urged the
COr.J11ission to change the zoning of this
property to Multi-Family for the purpose
of construction apartments. Mr. Barrett
said when they first applied for the
zoning, they had the zoning they needed.
He said their application was soley to
develop what they considered a better
housing complex, better for the future
residents, better for the city and better
for the surrounding neighborhood. Mr.
Barrett said through posted signs, newspaper
articles, correspondence with the city and
their platting, its intended development as
Multi-Family has been obvious since its
zoning change 13 years ago.
Mr. Barrett said now it appears a zoning
change is necessary to follow through on
the 8 months of effort and expense incurred
toward what they believe will be the finest
housing of its kind in Northeast Tarrant
County.
.
Page 11
p & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr. Barrett said at the hearing for their
preliminary plat in Phase I, the Commission
urged him to be sensitive to the concerns
of the neighbors to the north and their
desire to avoid a landlocked situation on
the vacant parcel of land, 150 feet deep.
He said he had made attempts; he had made
them an offer; there was no response; then
he met with them and they requested he
build them a street. Mr. Barrett said he
could not do that. However, he said they
would commit to dedicate right-of-way for
a road to intersect Mike Street for 160
feet west of Rufe Snow. Mr. Barrett said
they would also pay for that 160 feet of
street and utility construction providing
the city does not make them replace the
parking spaces they will lose by that
dedication. He said this agreement would
have to be made prior to their start of
construction. Mr. Barrett said this agree-
ment would allow the property owners to
develop their property with a 50 ft. right-
of-way and a 100 ft. depth of lot necessary
for a duplex zoning. He said he would
support their zoning change.
.
Mr. Barrett said when they first bought the
property, they had the flexibility to
build apartments on all 47 acres, but after
discussion with the City Staff and the
Commission, they have reduced it to approx-
imately 21 acres. He said their intentions
for the western tract is townhouses with
ze~o lot lines and their plan for the
corner tract is a neighborhood shopping
center anchored by a grocery store. Mr.
Barrett said they had positive conversations
with two major grocery chains, but their
comments were that they would need the
multi-family there to create the need for
a grocery store. Mr. Barrett said the
development of the whole 47 acres is
dependent upon the Multi-Family housing.
.
Mr. Barrett said this 47 acres is too
large to develop as Local Retail and it is
not feasable for single family homes. He
said the logical use of this land is as
apartments and this development is necessary
to create a market for the other two tracts.
Page 12
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr. Tucker asked if this property were
Single Family, what would a lot cost.
Mr. Barrett said approximately $80,000.
He said he paid $1.30 per square foot
plus interest for this property; then
add the water and sewer cost. He said
the area south of Glenview has been
targeted for redevelopment and he feels
this Multi-Family zoning would be a good
transition. He said they were going to
design and construct these units as
condominimums to be converted to such
when a viable market is here. Mr. Barrett
said they would have extra amenities such
as fireplaces, washer/dryer connections,
cathedral ceilings, large patio/balconies,
semi-private courtyards and energy efficient
designs and green spaces.
Mr. Tucker asked what the price would be to
rent these apartments.
.
Mr. Barrett said the one bedroom apartments
would rent for $375.00 and the two bedroom
apartments for $460.00 per month.
Mr. Tucker asked if he would agree to making
the site plan and construction plans a part
of thi's zoning.
Mr. Barrett said he is willing to tie the
zoning to exactly what is shown in his site
plan and construction plans.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and
called for those wishing to speak in favor
of this request to please come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak, the
Chairman called for those wishing to speak
in opposition to please come forward.
Chairman Tucker said the petition that was
submitted would become a part of the minutes
of this meeting.
.
Bill Ernst, 6612 Tabor St., came forward.
He said the traffic on Rufe Snow is such
that Rufe Snow is not even usuable now,
morning or evening. Mr. Ernst said this
Page 13
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
apartment comples would add 200 cars both
morning and evening on Rufe Snow. He
said it would ruin the value of surrounding
land, it would become a slum area with
transient residents, uncaring, with no
yards or gardens, and absentee landlords.
Mr. Ernst said this apartment complex would
create additional crime and drug problems.
He said one of the City Council members
stated the last five drug busts were made
in apartment complexes. ~1r. Ernst said
we do not need any rental property in
North Richland Hills. He said this would
be spot zoning since there is Single Family
on all four sides. Mr. Ernst said apartments
do not pay their fair share. He said Mr.
Barrett said he had spent eight months
working on this property, but these homeowners
have up to 35 years invested. Mr. Ernst said
he was requesting the Commission turn down
this apartment complex.
.
Mr. Ernst said Mr. Barrett must have gone
to the wrong place to figure the price for
a lot there. He said you could buy any of
those houses and lots for $80,000.
Mr. Tucker asked what Mr. Ernst would like
to see there.
Mr. Ernst said he would like to see Single
Family homes. He said he feels it would be
the highest and best use of the land.
Mr. Tucker asked if he realized what could
be built there with the present Local Retail
zoning; you could put in a shopping center
which would make more traffic than an apart-
ment complex.
Mr. Ernst asked how this property got zoned
because he never got a notice and he asked
if the zoning could have been changed without
contacting the property owners.
.
Mr. Wood asked what it was zoned when he
bought his property.
Mr. Ernst said it was selling for $75.00 an
acre and they run cattle on it.
Page 14
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr. Hannon asked when this property was
zoned Local Retail.
Richard Russell said it was zoned Local
Retail in August, 1969. He gave Ms.
Calvert a clipping from a newspaper telling
of the proposed development.
E. G. Mackey, 6504 Tabor Street, came
forward. He said he left Texas for a
while and then moved back. He said he
thought this land would be developed like
Diamond Loch. Mr. Mackey said at $56,000
an acre, you could have three or four lots
and he felt that North Richland Hills would
benefit more with Single Family zoning
rather than apartments.
.
Karen Migues, 6624 Tabor Street, came
forward. She said her opposition had
already been stated by Mr. Ernst. She said
they had lived here 6 months, but they
bought with the intention of raising their
children, 7 & 12 years old, there, but they
do not prefer to raise their children next
to apartments.
Mr. Wood asked if they purchased the lot
behind them.
Ms. Migues said they did. She said they
were thrilled to have the additional area
for their children to play.
Raymond Scott, 6529 Tabor Street, came
forward. He said he agreed with Mr. Ernst.
Mr. Scott said he has to travel to Loop
820 and go through two school zones. He
said a lot of kids walk to school in this
area and if this zoning is changed, he does
know how they could compensate for the
traffic.
Mr. Tucker said the Commission only has two
choices, approve the Multi-Family zoning or
deny it, which would leave it Local Retail.
.
Jim Hackney, 6520 Tabor Street, came forward.
He said he lives just north of the property
in question, and he echos what has already
been said. Mr. Hackney said he had lived
Page 15
p & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
here 3~ years and when he bought, he
looked for an economical area to spend
the rest of his life. He said he knew
lots were expensive, but $80,000. He
said he would sell his' for $8,000.
Mr. Wood asked what he would rather have
there, Local Retail or Multi-Family.
Mr. Hackney said he had rather have Local
Retail, but he did not feel it would go
over there. He said he had rather have
Single Family there. Mr. Hackney said the
houses in this area are worth from $115,000
to $120,000 now, but he feels they could
get only $80,000 for them if these apart-
ments are built.
.
Jim Keding, 4140 Rufe Snow Drive, came
forward. He said he had lived here 26
years and he remembers when Rufe Snow was
only a two lane road. He said the City
told him he couldn1t park in front of his
house and the city took some of his land
to widen Rufe Snow. Mr. Keding said he
remembers when they rezoned a 150 ft. strip
of land facing Glenview for Local Retail
which fell through. He said they wanted
to build some shops; then there was one
time they wanted to build a home for the
mentally retarted which fell through. Mr.
Keding said then in 1969, they planned to
build condos and 2 family residences, and
then sometime or another, it was zoned
Local Retail. Mr. Keding said he has to
leave for work at 6:45 to beat the traffic.
He said he has had cars up in his yard, has
had the front of his car smashed. Mr.
Keding said he did some checking and found
that 30 days after apartments are built,
crime goes up and the drug rate goes up 70%.
Mr. Keding asked the Commission if they had
tried to take a bath down Rufe Snow. He
said water comes out the pipes about the
size of a pencil.
Mr. Keding said this property was previously
proposed for condos, $60,000 to $80,000 per
site.
.
Page 16
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr. Hannon asked where he got his source
of information regarding crime and drugs.
Mr. Keding said from the newspapers and
the Fort Worth Police Department.
Ron Brown, 6428 Diamond Loch Drive, came
forward. He said he would like to
reafirm what Mr. Ernst said. Mr. Brown
said it would put an additional burden on
the schools. He said the school children
have to go to school in pre-fab buildings
now and we don't have enough teachers, now.
Mr. Brown said he bought his property 7
years ago and was assured by the seller
that Local Retail zoning did not allow
apartments in it.
.
Jean Deavers, 6512 Tabor Street, came
forward. She said she had rather see
retail there instead of apartments, but
she hates to see either there. Ms. Deavers
said they had worked all their life to
buy a home and they want to put something
like this behind them.
Frank Deavers, 6512 Tabor Street, came
forward. He said he echos everything
that has been said. Mr. Deavers said he
been in on some of these zoning cases,
but he did not get a letter when this was
zoned.
Mr. Deavers said he has a lot he would
sell for $8,000.
Greg Kankey, 6632 Tabor Street, came
forward. He said this is his first house
to own. He said he had saved for three
years to be able to get away from apartments.
Mr. Kankey said if these apartments go in,
he will sell his house.
Marvin Daily, 6640 Tabor Street, came
forward. He said he believes the Commission
has done them a great injustice by approving
the platting on this property.
.
Mr. Tucker said the Commission has to see
that the plat meets the Subdivision Ordinance
Page 17
P & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
regarding easements, fire lanes, etc. He
said their approval of the platting does
not mean they can build apartments there.
Mr. Daily asked if these apartments can
go in the present zoning.
Mr. Tucker said they could not.
Mr. Wood asked regarding the lots these
people o~/n behind their homes, would they
consider a compromise and work with this
developer for duplexes behind their homes.
Mr. Daily said duplexes are one thing and
apartments is another.
Mr. Wood said if they don't compromise, it
will cut off their lots.
Mr. Daily said he believes Local Retail
zoning should stay there.
.
Ted Yaggi, 6616 Tabor Street, came forward.
He said he doesn1t care if this property is
ever developed and he would gladly sell his
property at a fair price.
Vicki Burson, 6408 King Arthur Ct., came
forward. She asked if this property could
be zoned for a school.
Mr. Wood said he would like to see a park
there, but the owners of the property have
to request the zoning change.
Ms. Burson said if this is turned down, could
the city buy it.
Mr. Tucker said the city could not afford it,
and also, the city is not in the Real Estate
business.
Ms. Burson said she had called the city and
have always been told she is too late, there
is nothing she can do.
Mr. Tucker said she could petition to speak
before the City Council.
.
The Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
Page 18
p & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
Mr~ Tucker stated he would not vote on
this request because he lives in Diamond
Loch whi"ch is in this area, and he
requested that Alternate Member, John
Schwinger, take his place in voting on
this case.
Mr. Tucker said he would like to complement
the citizens in the way they conducted
themselves.
Mr. Hannon said he wanted to ask Mr. Barrett
where he arrived at the $80,000 figure for
the price of a lot.
Mr. Barrett said this was just an estimate.
He said you take $56,000 per acre, take
some for street and engineering cost,
construction cost, a commission to sell,
etc. Mr. Barrett said he would have a
verified figure before going to council.
.
Mr. Hannon said he was not sure it would
be that much. He asked how Mr. Barrett
figured the monthly rental price.
Mr. Barrett said he figured it at 55 cents
per square foot.
Mr. Hannon asked how many apartments would
house school children.
Mr. Barrett said they plan to have 80 one
bedroom apartments which would not have
children, 64 two bedromm apartments, split
level which caters to two singles and only
8 three bedroom apartments which could have
children. He said less than half would
have children.
.
Mr. Barrett said they went ahead and purchased
the other piece of land so the traffic could
be routed to Glenview. He said the develop-
ment would be in two phases, but you would
not be able to tell when one stops and the
other phase begins, it will go on until all
is complete.
Mr. Hannon said he would like to make some
comments about what has been said here. He
said with regard to the issue of traffic,
he feels there would be a traffic problem
Page 19
p & Z Minutes
December 21, 1982
.
with any development there, and also,
the property value would probably be
the same whether it was developed as
retail or apartments. Mr. Hannon said
as far as having transients there and
drug peddlers, etc., he is not sure, but
at 55 cents a square foot, he could not
afford to live there. He said the $460.00
is more than he pays for his home. Mr.
Hannon said he does not feel they would
have a low class of people in those
apartments.
.
Mr. Hannon said someone said North Richland
Hills did not need rental property. He
said he thinks that is inacurate; he feels
not all employees of businesses can afford
$115,000 homes as some on Tabor Street say
they have. Mr. Hannon said in regards to
apartments not paying their share, he feels
that is not true; it is a small piece of
property paying a larger amount of taxes;
they have a water and sewer system they
put in and pay to maintain, but in single
family homes, the city maintains them for
us. Mr. Hannon said he feels that, in a
sense, the apartments are paying more than
their share. Mr. Hannon said he felt that
none of these were valid reasons to turn
down this request.
Ms. Nash made a motion to deny PZ 82-37.
This motion died for lack of a second.
PZ 82-37
APPROV ED
Mr. Hood made a motion to approve PZ 82-37
as requested.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and
the motion carried 4-1 with Ms. Nash voting
against.
Chairman Tucker stated this case will be
heard by the City Council on January 10th
and this is only a recommendation to the
council for approval.
.
Mr. Bowen said with this valid petition, it
will take a 3/4 majority of the council to
approve it.
Mr. Tucker said it has to be 20% of the area.
Page 20
p & Z ~inutes
December 21, 1982
.
RECESS
BACK TO ORDER
The Chairman called a recess at 9:45 P. M.
The Chairman called the meeting back to
order at 9:55 P. M. with the same members
present.
13.
PZ 82-38
Request of R. C. Breakell Holdings, Inc.
to rezone portions of Tracts lC & ID,
Abstract 1588, J. M. Vandusen Survey,
from their present classification of
Multi-Family ~ Local Retail to a proposed
classification of Commercial.
This property is located at the Northwest
corner of Rufe Snow Drive and Northeast
Loop 820.
Bill Crowson came forward to represent
R. C. Breakell Holdings, Inc. He said
they were requesting a change from Multi-
Family & Local Retail to Commercial.
Mr. Tucker asked what the property will
be used for.
.
Mr. Crowson said it would be a type of
shopping center. He said they have 18
acres at the Northwest corner of Rufe
Snow and 820, 4 or 5 acres being zoned
Multi-Family and the rest is zoned Local
Retail. Mr. Crowson said there is another
44 acres of Multi-Family to the west and
then a strip of Commercial. He said they
may come in later for another zoning
change on some of it.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and
called for those wishing to speak in favor
of this request to please come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak, the
Chairman called for those wishing to
speak in opposition to this request to
please come forward.
There being no one wishin9 to speak, the
Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
PZ 82-38
APPROVED
Mr. Hannon made the motion to approve
PZ 82-38 as requested. This motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion
carried 5-0.
.
Page 21
P ~~ Z Mi nutes
December 21, 1982
.
ADJOURNt1ENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P. M.
ô~c ~r
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
¿ ,.'
/1
"'- c:~~;~>:;;:J~
'"' - - --- ,....
SECRETARY, PL~NING AND ZONING COMMISSION
.
.
~
11~~~~~µ'
u) Á-o ¿J ~ (!.,-...-.{~?;: L .
I:L-Lo-g~
I ,). : ¡f.,:J- t /Ý/.
Mß,.
/
/
I:
North' Richlãnd Hills Planning & Zoning Commission
Zoning Applioation of Daryl R. Barrett with BWBM Partnership to
rezone Traots 2B4 & 2B6, Abstract 1588, J. M. Vandusen Survey, trom
their Present classification of Local Retail to a proposed classifioation ,
of Multi-Family.
Mr. Chairman and Commission Members:
We respectfully request that the entire body", of this petition be read
, .
into the record of the Public Hearing regarding the above referenced zoning
application.
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose this applioation for the rollowing
f
reasons:
.
The proposed zoning application will impact negatively on property values
of surround established single-family neighborhoods.
20 The proposed development will greatly inorease traffio on already
overorowded Rufe Snow oreating traffio jams and further rendering the
nearby single-family neighborhood~ an undesirable area in ~hcih to live.
3. The proposed development will bring in unoaring transient residents with
an increase in crime and drugs.
40 We believe the existing Local Retail zoning was a mistake when granted
some years ago. However, to change to the propose,d zoning will further
compound the error - it will be a classic example of SP9t Zoning.
4IÞ The developer will be able to construct his buildings on his property
so that they will literally be looking into ,the baokyard of our homes.
//
\/
.
,\
\
Each or us has a sizable investment in our property. The applic~ant has
no/such investment. He will not be hurt if this request is denied __
we will ALL be hurt.
7. When the apartments are completed, the applicant will take his profit
and run - leaving us, the citizens or North Richl·and Hills,. to live
with the problems his apartments oreate.
We ask each of you to consider long and hard the ramifioations his .
proposed application will have - all negative. The only positive-aspect
would be his profit. The City and the surrounding neighborhoods will
realize NOTHING positive.
You are serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission to represent the
~hes or the citizens or North Richland Hills.
~denying this zoning request.
We ask that you do so)now
ADDRESS
(p (p D g 1ã Lru-z-
t'ðR ~
¿{../;l~ ~
6b~~~~þ
~?28~
6b 3,2 7Ädð~
~fð Jc-~
b 6 tJ-O ¡;;z,b¢1-
~.63fo :J~
c,følq; ~
o~l. ~
2. · m ~
01<3. mrrr ~ I . 9;4
ðK40 t/2r t~~ ~~
( 5. '1Jh..l 1J~. d/úJ. ~
~k6. frVt- € ~. f. (" /k~ //
ok 7. tv . v n1u:J ,Q~A/W'að
oks. ·!ìtt4--1Î1M-UAY~~
~k.9.ì1~£~.~~
)K¡O. ~çt~?TÚáfff
l.-1Jk. .~. èÆ~ þ~ rí u ¿
j(.l2. Ú.4 &~
13 0 ':J:;;;;::;..
K.14. ,<:: ~1ì, 1¿lot:'~y'
é ~ 21:> ;r,-/8ð<
¿I' /.2, ~
~¿/~ .~~
{;·~~Ô . 7it~
TELEPHONE
~J'/-IJ. 77
~JI.c./~ 7 7
:2.~/-0712-
<577.... Ms;1'
ói 3/--/7Þa.,
i/tfj- ,/:2~ 7
2f I-~ tfed'"
4--Æ¡ý-25l-3ô
a?/..;. 3 s--/ J
c2'%/- SZ () á.
?'~.r-~¿)~O
,fS/-Áf¡?
~f/-~?/~
'a S-...~g-?f L/
./
IS. ~ \:~\~ b1J.Q\Gl-b'v
l~U~ Mú<ù/~ tS-/2 _t-jc~
11. 1113 _ D ~u~-v' ¡. s-/ ~ ~rm/
~8'1 ~a3;l..
18.'íYJt. .¡ ~..5ì~ &~'>L' 6$'OJ'.J+¿-fYL,
19. '171-~. ~g. _?I'U~~/. . 6-5"04 ~¿J_ _ ¥'/'y¿!6S-
¡J ~ 6~tó- 300<}
20. 7JÚ4. ¿(/-7')?¿d . f ~-o '-I -;;¡;U'r:n/ 6.s-G -:sCO 9
21.. ~ £? ¡¿/-ff;-~ ~_5¿)P ~~~ ~ 9-1- tJR~-1
22qÞd 1Jì1Í!l~ ~6fD;ø~,.t¿td~ o;J"P/- tld6/
23. .,1~~¿7 C::¡11fz)/74/1r/j! Í--1t-o,ul4 ¥¥/;¿ j.94-/~;tJ,/~fJ{ 1ft'S-- /i'li ,
24. ~"""iJ :!'^:'. .~f{/ úJi.JJ...u~ê5- 4'/0 y ~ ~ qf'~--Jf'fy
2S. 7J,tW. Zu. 4.. Pnr-~ 6 ~ ~r ~,f/-'f033
oK26.-J7r¡vct 7MI.J.«O~ ~,,~v ?()o', *..-/b~R
cK21. \Y~7~ ~~ ~?¿?~ ~~"'
7:J7~-rr --= 67/,., 7~~, . ~PI_/~tJ g
.~ ;Je<. '» ~ ¡.../)/p'9'1
~ f3 ~ ¿711 'yJ,.'. . ot-.
29. d'ì~ ~ ~ ~/_1J¡'11
30. ~X -fILA/ ¿.. 1// .~ if r5-;:)I{-SS
cr"'P"\~ Ü-/~ () /P 1 () 5 ·
o~31o µ \! ~ /J.. ___ / (p 7() / ~ 41'S' - & I/).$
01<32 JJþt(J Ct.«..:j I ~ Y" ~ q · ß ,.$ ~3l.(
. /" {g ? Ó I .~
~y , ""'--
o \l-- 3 3 · <--......... ~ p
_ - \lc ., u ~~
34. ~'-'Û~ orn..~
K3S.J)\f.rl-])r¥' ~tR- ~ (p1tJf5h(~
\(36. ~~ --d?~ b?Do .¡/)tfhbr
oK31. ~?e-~ Lj/c,¿ ò Æ.,A~
38. ~£ K~ 7'/7'0 ¿ÇJ~~
3g. X~ / ~~ {, 70 ~- -þYl~
40. ~. ~ ~. .~. - .~ lot, T". .' J.:fg S' :; '~Q
. _, ~- J - - // " 4.0 - Cc 1-'0 /" '
. )¡G--t'f ~t,'2- 1 ~{~/ c.¡VO(/¿}&7"'~J:J~ 61 fl-01CJ~1
42. 7kv <r//lkJ ~ é~ ¥~tJ(} «/~ ÆJ d-!/-t?S;5
::~~~ ~~ ~V-~/~
CU3.JV\. 0-- -{<:.vv'\ ~ ~ tc3 d... \ ,~q
, I'
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
1.[ &s-ð~{f L{-
28 /~ </332-.
i4 <is - 4 , 1 9
2. f{ L - u.lJ lc lJ
'J,kJ--/(¿,) g
,;2.J> /- ~,;z3 l?
d. rfJ- ~.:l3 ¡Y
¡..j. f ':> ... -0 '7 If )
~ ' ,
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
4~ jJjP ~ dJckulUJ-k ff;W6 I~ ;;~:;;S--
4"f1! /)1ll tJ fhll~ (!æt{ úJ~ 6tJ-~ 7lJl3ðJ!, þ 0/_ I 3 I I
47. ~/- ~' (, & Ÿ'9 ~øt7/f- (f
ç ~ / ~~ ~ d. .f / - /3//
48. ~. ' tc ~/ /aArfrV
49. /ì)b ¿;~3J ~ ;;l8'J - ðS:a-d-7
50 . ~....... . ~ (, ~ 7 Qð J 1 ~ !j q p - tJ .' I 7
51.?$-~~ tb~7 ~ 19~-61/1
52. ~~ '/4U:4 â/pS'~~~çL/c:;;t.¡/~ ~gySL/7J
53. ~J C-. ~~ ft,(¡,/? ". LJI'S,-(J~9S
54. f6.JLùQ. 9- ~ IP" 0 c¡ J !PJ? I (~h
55. 9. () ~ ' fs, ¿, 0 9 J §1)/}/16-6 .
56. 0Y1 -r1~ b bOS'/AboR. ·~-g/7Sg.s
57. dØ4 t,j'"j 'l.~ l{¡/j-tjfr
&,~-~q~b()r 4C¡8,J:Jì!
, .s- 02 ~ 7Ã <70;(:
(¡C-7--S- TA&4/L
'S-~.~~~
~5t7 f~
(óS(7· ~
~'"p ? '/~
I,ó-o¿r /4A3o~
hJ(JS- ~
, ,"
\
"
"4'
.\'
¡¡..
~.
72,
73.
4- ~g'-;2. 3 7~
~ K~-(,I \~~
~r'.J- -6/ S tfl
1'Pf-3?6 ()
17C¡- JP'bO
. 1-~~7ð~
(T77 -/~/~
S-7/-/~/~
/
/'
/